Walter, no offense, but I think pointing digitalmars.com/d/ directly to
the D 2.x specification is a Bad Thing(tm), not to say stupid,
marketing-wise. I keep reading comments about D being unstable and hard
to use and whatnot, even though D 1.x is totally stable and great
already!
I would rather want to see a big "See D 2.0 (experimental branch)"
somewhere on the home page, than having to click "1.0" for the stable
branch. This makes no sense; we want to attract new users actually,
no?
Best regards
--
Alexander Panek <alexander.panek brainsware.org>

Walter, no offense, but I think pointing digitalmars.com/d/ directly to
the D 2.x specification is a Bad Thing(tm), not to say stupid,
marketing-wise. I keep reading comments about D being unstable and hard
to use and whatnot, even though D 1.x is totally stable and great
already!
I would rather want to see a big "See D 2.0 (experimental branch)"
somewhere on the home page, than having to click "1.0" for the stable
branch. This makes no sense; we want to attract new users actually,
no?
Best regards

Agreed. Also consider new users who try to follow along with the
documentation to see the newer features failing to work because they
downloaded 1.0 and are looking at 2.0 documents.

Walter, no offense, but I think pointing digitalmars.com/d/ directly to
the D 2.x specification is a Bad Thing(tm), not to say stupid,
marketing-wise. I keep reading comments about D being unstable and hard
to use and whatnot, even though D 1.x is totally stable and great
already!
I would rather want to see a big "See D 2.0 (experimental branch)"
somewhere on the home page, than having to click "1.0" for the stable
branch. This makes no sense; we want to attract new users actually,
no?
Best regards

Votes++
This has been said before on several occasions.
Is there anyone out there who thinks that having the main page be D2.0
makes sense?
--bb

Walter, no offense, but I think pointing digitalmars.com/d/ directly to
the D 2.x specification is a Bad Thing(tm), not to say stupid,
marketing-wise. I keep reading comments about D being unstable and hard
to use and whatnot, even though D 1.x is totally stable and great
already!
I would rather want to see a big "See D 2.0 (experimental branch)"
somewhere on the home page, than having to click "1.0" for the stable
branch. This makes no sense; we want to attract new users actually,
no?
Best regards

Thanks for this post! I was going to send similar one, but you replaced me.
I agree in 100%. There can be probably nothing worse for D adoption, to
direct newcomers to unstable, experimental and (very possibly) buggy D
branch on main web page.
BR
Marcin Kuszczak
(aarti_pl)

Walter, no offense, but I think pointing digitalmars.com/d/ directly to
the D 2.x specification is a Bad Thing(tm), not to say stupid,
marketing-wise. I keep reading comments about D being unstable and hard
to use and whatnot, even though D 1.x is totally stable and great
already!
I would rather want to see a big "See D 2.0 (experimental branch)"
somewhere on the home page, than having to click "1.0" for the stable
branch. This makes no sense; we want to attract new users actually,
no?

Walter, no offense, but I think pointing digitalmars.com/d/ directly to
the D 2.x specification is a Bad Thing(tm), not to say stupid,
marketing-wise. I keep reading comments about D being unstable and hard
to use and whatnot, even though D 1.x is totally stable and great
already!
I would rather want to see a big "See D 2.0 (experimental branch)"
somewhere on the home page, than having to click "1.0" for the stable
branch. This makes no sense; we want to attract new users actually,
no?

But it could be useful to have a vendor-neutral landing site about the
D programming language itself, before going into DMD or GDC specifics ?
Then again I don't think the specification is released except for in the
compiler, so maybe it makes sense to redirect to the DM implementation.
--anders

Walter, no offense, but I think pointing digitalmars.com/d/
directly to the D 2.x specification is a Bad Thing(tm), not to say
stupid, marketing-wise. I keep reading comments about D being
unstable and hard to use and whatnot, even though D 1.x is totally
stable and great already!
I would rather want to see a big "See D 2.0 (experimental branch)"
somewhere on the home page, than having to click "1.0" for the
stable branch. This makes no sense; we want to attract new users
actually, no?

I absolutely agree. The D 1.0 spec is more stable, more tested, etc. D 2.0 is a
rough draft. The stable version should be more prominent. It should take extra
links to get to the current draft of D 2.0.
Also, I'm suspicious of the need for 2 versions for some pages, such as "D
links"
(http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/dlinks.html).
(By the way, there are some suggestions for D links on the DocComments wiki page
that might be nice to apply to that page. Are bug reports the way to get those
things improved these days?)

The "vendor-neutral" http://www.d-programming-language.org/ page isn't as
out-of-date as opend.org, but I did notice that the Gnu D link (should probably
say "GDC") should be: http://dgcc.sourceforge.net/
I don't know who is "in charge" of opend.org, but it's a pity that they can't at
least add a message to the home page to indicate that the website isn't been
maintained and the projects hosted there aren't being developed (at least at
opend.org) anymore.

Walter, no offense, but I think pointing digitalmars.com/d/ directly to
the D 2.x specification is a Bad Thing(tm), not to say stupid,
marketing-wise. I keep reading comments about D being unstable and hard
to use and whatnot, even though D 1.x is totally stable and great
already!
I would rather want to see a big "See D 2.0 (experimental branch)"
somewhere on the home page, than having to click "1.0" for the stable
branch. This makes no sense; we want to attract new users actually,
no?
Best regards

That website needs a whole overhaul.
The ubuntu website might be a good example.
Emphasis on the 'stable 1.0' and the 'experimental 2.0' as well on how to
get it working are essential on the frontpage.
I'd love to help out if necessary.

I agree. It would be nice if Walter had someone else (perhaps u)
maintaining the website long term, making it look pretty. That would do
a lot for attracting new users. Hopefully that would give Walter more
time to focus on D. I'm sure we could find someone, half the people in
this forum maintain there own websites anyway.

The ubuntu website might be a good example.
Emphasis on the 'stable 1.0' and the 'experimental 2.0' as well on how to
get it working are essential on the frontpage.
I'd love to help out if necessary.

That website needs a whole overhaul.
The ubuntu website might be a good example.
Emphasis on the 'stable 1.0' and the 'experimental 2.0' as well on how to
get it working are essential on the frontpage.
I'd love to help out if necessary.

Walter, no offense, but I think pointing digitalmars.com/d/ directly to
the D 2.x specification is a Bad Thing(tm), not to say stupid,
marketing-wise. I keep reading comments about D being unstable and hard
to use and whatnot, even though D 1.x is totally stable and great
already!
I would rather want to see a big "See D 2.0 (experimental branch)"
somewhere on the home page, than having to click "1.0" for the stable
branch. This makes no sense; we want to attract new users actually,
no?
Best regards
--
Alexander Panek <alexander.panek brainsware.org>